The Patriots front 3 in the past 3 playoff seasons - Below average efforts - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

PATRIOTSFANINPA · 02-05-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I dont think in our defensive scheme sacks by the down 3 is a good measurement. That is not their primary function. They are there to stop the run.
I think the weakness is in our defense when ahead, or in 2 minute drills.
In the last 3 playoff losses:
1) Denver won the game in the last 2 minutes of the first half.
2) Indy came back from a huge deficit by throwing a lot against a D trying to take away the pass.
3) The Giants drove over 80 yards in a 2 minute drill. We could not stop a pass only offense at the most critical time.

Where the blame lies is the question. I saw some but not enough pass rush. I saw some but not enough tight coverage from the corners. I was LBs and Safeties in the area but not covering tightly.
The difference to me between 01,03,04 (esp 03-04) and since is that defensively when we needed a stop, we got it then, but lately do not. The close games we played this season had these trends in them, but we overcame them. Sunday and the last 2 other playoff defeats we did not.

I thought it was very appropriate the way this season went that the Championship came down to our defense stopping the Giants from going most of the length of the field in the final 2+ minutes. This was the question mark that was left from 18-0. As it turned out we werent up to that challenge.

Well the Giants front line stopped the run AND put pressure
The Colts defense in 2006 stopped/slowed the run AND rushed Brady a lot
The Broncos defense in 2005 also did similar and resulted the smae

If you are a dominating line like our front 3 are supposed to and as good as some think you need to do BOTH stopping the run and pressuring the passer and especially in the crucial games,These 3 have not been able to do it consistently thus we are 0-3 in 3 years in a row - no denying that

RhodyPatriot · 02-05-2008, 12:53 PM

Don't recall who it was on this board but they came up with the best nickname for Seymour = Big Siesta!!

Way to come up big on the last drive there BigSie!
#93 is waaaaay overrated!!!!

borg · 02-05-2008, 01:21 PM

The defensive philosophy this year was consistent with the past SB runs. Bend but don't break....avoid the big play....make the opposition string together 10 plays to score. Contrast this style with the attacking Defenses the Pats saw vs the NYG and Balt. My peave vs the GMen was how the DBacks never pressed their receivers. The prime example is the cushion Assante gave Tyre on his TD catch. The ball was on the 5 yet Assante was 5 yards off his guy. That was a TD long before the pass was thrown. The Pats may want to consider adding a CB that can play more physical on the LOS just as opponents have lined up in Moss' face.

Harry Yelreh · 02-05-2008, 01:43 PM

I keep hearing about how the Giants totally outplayed NE or kicked NE's collective you-know-what, but the margin between the two was really extremely thin. One way a person could look at this game would be to say that, at the end, NE had a defensive back who dropped a ball that hit him in the hands while the Giants had a receiver that made a leaping grab to catch a ball up against his helmet. It's ridiculous, but that's football for you.

Otherwise, I thought the defensive front played very well, just literally let it slip through their fingers on one play - Manning's inexplicable escape. Stuffed the run and put decent pressure on him for much of the game. How the heck NE didn't recover Bradshaw's fumble at the 30, I'll never know. Then there was the forced fumble on Manning that bounced the Giants' way. Every break seemed to go like that.

The defensive front stuffed Jacksonville's vaunted run game, kept San Diego out of the endzone, did very well against the Giants' run game, and in general held opposing offenses out of the endzone for a stretch of 9 straight quarters in the playoffs. That's all really amazing when a person thinks about it.

But it still comes down to making plays in the clutch, and to that end, unfortunately, NE came up short, obviously. But as I said before: if we had known before the game that the Giants would score only 17 points, nearly all of us would have predicted a NE victory and maybe even a blowout.

DonBlackmon55 · 02-05-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borg

The defensive philosophy this year was consistent with the past SB runs. Bend but don't break....avoid the big play....make the opposition string together 10 plays to score. Contrast this style with the attacking Defenses the Pats saw vs the NYG and Balt. My peave vs the GMen was how the DBacks never pressed their receivers. The prime example is the cushion Assante gave Tyre on his TD catch. The ball was on the 5 yet Assante was 5 yards off his guy. That was a TD long before the pass was thrown. The Pats may want to consider adding a CB that can play more physical on the LOS just as opponents have lined up in Moss' face.

Patriots D being physical is a myth. I don't care what anyone says to defend it. Yes, they've done an excellent job of stopping the run, but putting pressure CONSISTENTLY is no where.

When was the last time you saw Pats DL DOMINATE the LOS. Only reason we finished #2 in sacks is b/c other teams were always behind and pass first philosopy played into the D hands.

unoriginal · 02-05-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonBlackmon55

When was the last time you saw Pats DL DOMINATE the LOS. Only reason we finished #2 in sacks is b/c other teams were always behind and pass first philosopy played into the D hands.

Probably the last time I saw that was when the Pats were running a one-gap 4-3.

The two-gap 3-4 isn't made to dominate the LOS, its made to control gaps and let the backers chase down the offensive backs.

***SoCal Pmen*** · 02-05-2008, 02:44 PM

This will definitely be an area of review and addressing by the coaching staff. When they look at the film and see how much time they allowed Manning and how little time Brady had it will hopefully get an upgrade. I don't think Colvin alone is the answer as his health is a question mark. I have faith in BB's ability to make the necessary changes here. With regards to corner, I would agree that they need to get more physical in that area and I don't think Hobbs is a long term answer there.

CrazyDave · 02-05-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonBlackmon55

Patriots D being physical is a myth. I don't care what anyone says to defend it. Yes, they've done an excellent job of stopping the run, but putting pressure CONSISTENTLY is no where.

When was the last time you saw Pats DL DOMINATE the LOS. Only reason we finished #2 in sacks is b/c other teams were always behind and pass first philosopy played into the D hands.

You know, when I heard that we were #2 in sacks I was amazed.
I did'nt think we did a very good job with pass rush at all this year.
Strange. We always seemed a step too late.

MrBigglesWorth · 02-05-2008, 02:50 PM

it is extremely absurd to blame the d-linemen the strength of the defense.

we need speed at linebacker. two added linebackers(playmakers) could make this the best defense.

as i recall they had a top defense this season?

unoriginal · 02-05-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PATRIOTSFANINPA

Totals from the 2005-2006-2007 seasons with players Vince Wilfork,Ty Warren and Richard Seymour.......

These are totals from all 3 starters...
4 Sacks
102 Tackles
0 Interceptions
0 Forced Fumbles

Thats approximately 1.3 sacks per player for all 7 playoff games and only an average of approximately 4.4 tackles per game per front 3

I looked at the 2003 and 2004 post-seasons. For starters in 2004 I had Wilfork/Traylor combined since they platooned, Warren, and Green/Seymour, as they started over each other due to injuries. For starters in 2003 I had Hamilton, Seymour, and Washington. Here are the stats for those 6 games:

Tackles: 53
Sacks: 2

As terrible as our defensive line was in 2005-07, they were only half as good in 2003-04. You'd have to go back to 2002 to find a line that was really good and... oh, wait. Well, at least we had a good defensive line back in 2001, didn't we?